Argentina was celebrating a diplomatic coup yesterday in its attempt to force Britain to accept talks on the future of the Falkland Islands, after a two-hour meeting in Buenos Aires between Hillary Clinton and President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

Responding to a request from Mrs Kirchner for “friendly mediation” between Britain and Argentina, Mrs Clinton, the US Secretary of State, said she agreed that talks were a sensible way forward and offered “to encourage both countries to sit down”.

Her intervention defied Britain’s longstanding position that there should be no negotiations unless the islands’ 3,000 inhabitants asked for them. It was hailed in Buenos Aires as a major diplomatic victory, but condemned in the Falklands.

And for the Secretary, it’s about the Falklands. The – President Fernandez talked about possible friendly mediation. Would the U.S. be considered – would the U.S. (inaudible) consider some kind of mediation role between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands? Thank you.

PRESIDENT DE KIRCHNER: (Via interpreter) (Inaudible) what we have (inaudible) by both countries as a friendly country of both Argentina and the UK, so as to get both countries to sit down at the table and address these negotiations within the framework of the UN resolutions strictly. We do not want to move away from that in any letter whatsoever, any comma, of what has been stated by dozens of UN resolutions and resolutions by its decolonization committee. That’s the only thing we’ve asked for, just to have them sit down at the table and negotiate. I don’t think that’s too much, really, in a very conflicted and controversial world, complex in terms.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And we agree. We would like to see Argentina and the United Kingdom sit down and resolve the issues between them across the table in a peaceful, productive way.

This is wrong in so many ways, but let me stress the point that this means that the Secretary of State of the United States has now agreed to the Argentinian’s president position that Britain negotiate against the will of Britain and of the citizens of the Falklands islands, and subject itself to the whim of UN resolutions and the UN’s Marxist-controlled decolonization committees.

So, once again, the Obama administration has sold Great Britain, formerly our #1 ally, down the river, along with the inhabitants of the Falklands, whose opinions would seem to count for something. We are past the point where anyone could doubt that the Obama administration’s hostility toward the U.K. is intentional. Obama seems to have substituted personal pathology for national policy.

Comments

There was a cheese-weasel in Marketing who used to make stupid and outrageous promises he couldn’t possibly keep, and then shifted the demand to Engineering to “fix it” when he f*d up. That’s nicer than this.

I’ve lost count. How many of our allies and other nations friendly to the US has O thrown under the bus while bowing and embracing the dictators and tyrants of the world? Honduras, Poland, Czech Rep. Taiwan, S. Korea, Britain, Israel, Iranian protesters…who else?

The quick take: Upon first blush, one might assume that the UK’s ownership of the FI is a legacy of her empire and/or colonialism. The true facts, however, are otherwise, as WH indicates — the Islands were formerly uninhabited, settled by the Brits starting in 1765 (more than 50 years before Argentina was even formed), and consists almost entirely of UK citizens, not Argentines. The islands lie well outside of Argentine territorial waters.

The UK would readily give them up if the people living there wished them to, but, when they last attempted to relinquish control, the Islanders rioted.

Now go read the rest. The Argentine claim to the islands is ridiculous and bogus. The UK’s position is that they’ll leave when the Islanders wish them to, not before.

The Obama® Brand Foreign Policy position on this is, as usual, totally, utterly wrong and absolutely unsupportive of democratic ideals and principles. After seeing the Obama® Brand response to Honduras’s attempted coup (by its president) and Iran’s election protests, is it any surprise that their position on this is flat out ridiculously counter to every American ideal there is?